We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign
By Jenniffer Marohasy
MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.
Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data - which he had been asking for since 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. (Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009)
Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey stick’. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.
This week’s claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the methodology is laid bare.
This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets are kept hidden from the public - including from scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign. See post here.
Looks like they were cherry-picking data to get the results they wanted. Why?
Living as I do in the UK I can only say the Met Office (as they are largely known here) is widely regarded as a joke. It is often said they will cheerfully publish a report of bright sunshine while rain lashes against their windows. Well, I suppose above the clouds it is nice...
Of course Britain has a maritime climate and the weather coming in from the Atlantic changes rapidly. Even so, they are consumed with PC thoughts and subscribe to the Socialist Collective of Approved Thinking.
There once was a key principle in science that the application of the intellect was everything and an enquiring mind would peel back the layers of ignorance and myth to reveal the truth. But perhaps the Met Office has no scientists now; they only employ people who willingly accept what they are told to think and how to act.
Perhaps if they questioned matters they would be ostracized and find themselves friendless and even unemployed. Perhaps too they are only "following orders" and as we know from history, that is a pretty powerful antidote to the disruption of an easy life caused by wanting to know the truth.
Why were they 'cherry-picking' data? So they could score grant money from rich guys like Al Gore who want cherry-picked data to support unjustifiable assumptions. Of course, Al would never admit this, but any guy who founds a carbon-offset forgiveness corporation, so that he can buy carbon-offsets from himself, has, to say the least, a very circular mind. As well as a dishonest one.